Yes, you are correct in what Martin Luther wanted. I believe he was in error when he stated his thoughts about the Epistle of James. The reason I think he wanted it removed because it conflicted with his sola fide argument. I don’t believe in sola fide or sola scriptura (kinda strange for a Protestant) but because Luther so believed in sola fide, he wanted James removed. Again, this is my theory and I can’t prove it, but it makes sense.
The Church is also God breathed, and inspired - inerrant.
No, I think the problem you are having is that you have separated yourself from the Apostolic Tradition, and this prevents you from interpreting the passage as it was meant. Marriage is not a requirement for bishops.
So, why do you reject the other books of the OT that were formally recognized at that time?
This does not make any sense.
Well we read it differently.
What you are saying is that Jesus is a liar, or a weakling,
I think that Mary did not even understand how magnificient her role would be.
When we read it, we read through the lens of the Apostolic Teachings, so we see things that are not visible to those who have rejected the Sacred Traditions.
do you think that Jesus did not give Peter a special ministry that was given to no other?
Indeed. And what was Cornelius doing that caught God’s attention?
sorry, but your advise shows failure, since you claim to study the
Just one question: do you think this type of language furthers any conversation with our fellow christians???sorry, but your advise shows failure,
you can either follow and obey the Church instituted by Christ in St Peter or you can join the haters of this Church and follow what is tought [sic] by man with itching ears.
The church of the 4th century determined which books would be in the NT canon by various “tests” that were used to determine which were indeed Scripture. Keep in mind the church itself did not make the Scriptures inspired-inerrant but were already inspired-inerrant by God.
Does the catholic church offically claim i.e." The Church is also God breathed, and inspired - inerrant" somewhere?
This means that in terms of authority the Scriptures are greater and take 1st place in what a Christian is to believe and practice. If a church or teacher teaches something that is contrary to the Scriptures that teaching is not binding or to be followed.
and who determines what teachings are contrary to the SS?
So, then, can you show me a teaching of the Catholic Church that is ‘contrary’ to Scripture?
The church itself did not “produce” the Scriptures but they have their source in God. We also know that the OT Scriptures were not produced by the church. God used people to write these things down.
We can know many things for sure today. If a person wants to present a new doctrine or practice then we can go to the scriptures to see if such a thing should be done. We can even ask if such a thing is necessary if the Scriptures already teach such a thing. Praying to the saints is one such example. Its unnecessary since Christ alone is sufficient for everything we need. We have direct access to Him.
Yes.
I Thess 5:21-22 is a good place to start—
True. It also does not follow that since we don’t have the bones she must have been taken up into heaven either. There is no positive evidence this happened.
Do you have any evidence in the NT that leads you to think that Mary thought she was without sin?
I don’t think she expected such a thing and was probably overwhelemed with it all.
I get the sense from the passage that this encounter went rather quickly and it would take time to absorb it all. Actually she was not elated but troubled by it. See Luke 1:29
i agree with the first part here but i don’t know where you get the idea that i think this what you write in the 2nd part.
By implication all kinds of things could be said to be true. What Sacred Tradition are you referring to? It took centuries before the claims about her are mentioned.
The pastors and elders. It is their job to understand the Scriptures correctly and to teach others.
Lets take baptism as an example. In Scripture we see:
There is a lot here. Where has the Catholic church offically interpreted the Scriptures to mean what you claim here? Take for example Clerical celibacy. Has the Catholic church offically interpreted I Timothy 3 to mean that a man is to be celibate and not married to be a church leader?
The Catholic Church concerning celibacy as a discipline not dogma. It is not mandatory, if it was mandatory, there would be no married priest in the entire Catholic Church. In the Latin Rite, there are priests who are married under the Pastoral Provision established by Rome. Many of these married men were former Anglican, or Lutheran ministers. In the Eastern Rite Catholic Church, there are married men who are priests.
Is it not true that if a Roman Catholic married man wants to become a priest that he is disqualified at the start from even being considered for the priesthood because he is married?
Under the current Code of Canon Law, single baptized Catholic men can be ordained priests in the Latin Rite (Roman Rite). A man from Latin Rite; who is married man cannot enter into the priesthood. So the answer to your question is yes but only in a Latin Rite. This Law could change if another Church Synod was to be called forth.
No. However Paul does seem to say that it is better to marry than to burn. I Corinthians 7:9.
This quote really tells that you have a lot of learning ahead of you. Jesus taught One Truth, established One Church, wanted everyone to be One - not many. He started His Church - the Early Church - the Catholic Church. He breathed on the apostles (which is a very important) and gave His Authority to Apostles to go forth and teach, to bind and loose, gave Peter the Keys and told him to feed His sheep, and promised to guide them and protect the Church until the end of time. Do you believe that he means what he says? Do you believe that Jesus meant what he said there? Anyway, that is One Church beginning, not many. There can and is only One true Church founded by Christ and he wanted every Christian to be One in it. Splits off of the original Church that Christ founded to begin their own Churches aren’t One. They were started by man, not by Christ. Nor were they given His divine Authority. Just start reading from the historical beginning, all the history of the times, the beginning of the Church, what the original teachings were for over 1500 years before the Reformation brought changes to those teachings. The Catholic Church still teaches those SAME teachings. It’s teaching and interpretation of Christ’s Deposit of Faith has NEVER changed. It is One. From the Reformation forward, you can p(name removed by moderator)oint the exact years that each denomination/Church was established and who established it. That alone tells you it is not Christ’s Church. He said One, and that is what he meant.
OK, SERIOUSLY, what planet are you from? You are kidding, right? That is ABSOLUTELY not even remotely true. The Reformers separated from the Catholic Church and changed teachings/interpretations/doctrine and formed a whole new church. The Catholic Church did NOT accept ANY of the Reformation, PERIOD!